Scoring:
Not significant;
Low Significance;
Moderate Significance;
Medium-high Significance;
High Significance;
Exceptional Significance
Evidence A: The area appears to be of high significance due to relatively high species range-size rarity, the presence of key biodiversity areas, and the importance of forest for high endemism and also medicinal plants.
Evidence B:The proposal is focused on safeguarding and conserving social-culturally defined indigenous practices by IPLCs - the Karamojong - for natural resources conservation in the Karamoja region. The key actors envisaged are women, however the envisaged strategy for inclusion of IPLCs in the proposal is weak in failing to recognize men as the key custodians of cultural practices and stewards of nature, whereas women are key users under customary communal land holdings.
Scoring:
>50 t/ha - Low;
50 - 100 t/ha - Moderate;
>100 t/ha - High
Evidence A: The area has a high level with an average above 100 t/ha
Evidence B:It is a vast savannah grassland, still in its natural for and it is an essential carbon sink.
Scoring:
IPLC governance (rights and institutions) not evident;
Project areas are marginally under IPLC governance (spatially or politically);
Project areas are partially under IPLC systems of governance (spatially or politically);
Project areas are largely under IPLC governance, but IPLC rights and/or institutions face significant constraints;
Project areas are held and managed under IPLC governance systems, with some limitations;
Project areas are held and managed under strong and active IPLC governance systems
Evidence A: This appears to be an area where there are strong and active IPLC governance systems in place.
Evidence B:Karamoja is an essential territory for indigenous native communities. The peoples and region has been traditionally marginalized from national development for many decades and has recently opened up to mineral industry developments. Over the years IPLC rights over land and traditional land use management institutions have been weakened leading to greater bio-diversity loss. Incoming influence of mining industry is an extensive threat. However in the proposal, it is unclear how the pathway of responding to the incursion of mining activities as a land use, through strengthening community governance leads to the outcomes of greater conservation of biodiversity and other species. Even though the proposal builds on culturally defined conservation practices that were previously strong, their value and application has lessen as IPLCs lost their rights to land and change in land use has taken place. The region is opening up to large scale land acquisitions and mining developments at the expense of previously culturally defined conservation as well officially well defined and gazetted conservation areas.
Scoring:
No explanation given of unique significance to IPLCs;
Significance of site(s) vaguely described;
Unique significance of project site(s) clearly explained
Evidence A: The primary value for IPLCs is for nomadic livestock, medicinal plants, water provisioning and cultural rituals.
Evidence B:Whereas the proposal mentions accurate culturally defined practices of the Karamojong IPLCs, as witnessed two decades ago, it is unable to present an in-depth articulation of the current state and positioning of such practices, since this society has significantly evolved in the last three decades. The youthful generation and women who are envisaged actors may not be aware of the pathway between the cultural sites and conservation, in the face of raising incomes from mining or agro-pastoral cultivation. The partners to the applicant do have this knowledge, understanding and would able to articulate how such an institutional set-up would lead to the desired outcomes. Recognizing and working with the existing traditional institutions of IPLCs is essential to realizing the outcomes of this proposal.
Scoring:
No evident threats;
Low threats;
Moderate threats;
Medium-high threats;
High threats;
Requires urgent action
Evidence A: Charcoal production, mineral rights and mining are the primary drivers of habitat loss and degradation. However, the area also faces a high degree of cumulative threats.
Evidence B:The major external threat is rooted in the economic path chosen by political leaders on how the Karamoja region should grow after almost a century of exclusion from national economic growth and development efforts. The path of extraction of the vast natural resources in the region is being pursued with little or no attention to biodiversity (except in areas that are already earmarked as such - the national park and conservation reserves), but most certainly without any specific attention to the IPLCs as agents of conserving territories and landscapes. The proposal is not sufficiently strong or articulate on IPLCs as the agents and drivers of their own change nor is it able to show the pre-existing cultural/traditional institutional roles of IPLCs in conservation of biodiversity.
Scoring:
Legal and policy frameworks in project areas undermine IPLC governance (either actively or through absence);
Legal and policy frameworks recognize limited rights for IPLCs over their lands and/or resources;
Legal and policy frameworks recognize rights over lands and resources but with constraints (e.g., lack implementing regulations);
Legal and policy frameworks actively promote the recognition of IPLC governance
Evidence A: This proposal has a solid approach to the enabling conditions required for IPLC-led conservation.
Evidence B:The broad national policy framework for IPLC inclusion in the governance of their land and natural resources is present in the land law , forest law, wildlife conservation and even in the mining legislation. However, the implementation and enforcement is almost nil in the Karamoja region. The rights are defined over land and resources, they are limiting and in some instances adversary to community interests and in other cases fail to recognize the crucial role of IPLCs in biodiversity conservation. The approaches employed in other areas such as South Western Uganda have been successful in community based forest conservation for example, but may to be replicable in Karamoja because of the concept of customary-community land holdings rather than individual ownership of land and resources as in other parts of Uganda. The pastoralist lifestyle and agro-pastoral livelihoods redefine conservation efforts in ways that the proposal fails to acknowledge or work with in the preparation of its actions and depiction of its outcomes.
Scoring:
National or sub-national governments are actively opposed to IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments have recognized the importance of IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments have implemented some support for IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments are actively engaged in the promotion of IPLC rights and IPLC-led conservation
Evidence A: The government appears to actively promote this initiative.
Evidence B:Uganda’s laws recognize community ownership of for families or groups under customary tenure. Resource laws in forestry, wildlife conservation make specific provisions for community led forest management and use. However, the rate of implementation of both land and resource related laws in favor of IPLCs has been the lowest in Karamoja region as compared to highly progressive advances in south western Uganda. There is a lesser recognition amongst administrators at local and national level of the capabilities of marginalized IPLC communities such as Karamojong as actors in the conservation of bio-diversity. This non-recognition and non-acceptable is an aspect that proposal has to address in building relationship, understanding and bringing closer IPLCs to government officials.
Scoring:
No IPLC-led conservation initiatives have been implemented;
Few IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented in pilot stages only;
Some IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented beyond pilot stages;
Relevant IPLC-led conservation projects have been well established for many years
Evidence A: Yes, there are other examples of IPLC-led iniatives, including community REDD+ activities.
Evidence B:Fewer attempts have made on IPLCs initiatives that have often ended more in awareness raising and community training interventions on bio-diversity conservation. Whereas the previously known Karamojong cultural practices were strong on conservation, it is difficult to pinpoint a pilot project that has been progressive in reviving such practice despite the strong base/foundation that easily be accepted by communities. This is because very few projects/interventions have gone out with such an intention and this specific opportunity has a very high chance of sparking cultural revival that is positive to conservation and progressive to IPLCs rights over land and their natural resources.
Scoring:
Few to no complementary projects/investment;
Complementary projects/investments are small, or are tangentially related to project goals;
Complementary Projects/investments align strongly with project goals and investments are substantial
Evidence A: There are several initiatives which would strengthen this proposal and align well, including by the Open Society Initiative, European Union, Belgium Development Cooperation
Evidence B:There is an overwhelming knee-jerk response to mining and titling of customary lands in the Karamoja region in the last 3 years, which has forced NGOs to respond to this area given the extensive community outcry by IPLCs in the area. In that sense complimentary initiatives focused on securing land rights, supporting IPLC communities to claim benefits from mining companies for surface rights access (compensation or purchase) to mining sites, IPLCs engagement and negotiations with conservation agencies especially Forestry Authority and Wildlife Authority - given resurge of tourism and conservation in the Kidepo Valley National Park. These are still few and rather in infancy on inclusive and IPLC driven engagements. Communities are not necessarily the owners or drivers of such initiatives, hence a great need for authentic initiatives - this applicant needs to be support to have more empowering partnerships with the local IPLCs led organizations such as Karamoja Development Forum.
Scoring:
Weakly aligned;
Partially aligned;
Well aligned;
Exceptionally well aligned
Evidence A: The approach is well aligned, focusing on nomadic grazing and attending rights.
Evidence B:Whereas the base or foundation of recognizing and reviving cultural practices that are conservation oriented in Karamojong is sound the proposal fails to carry through the thinking on how this is going to be achieved, certainly the activities do not address this as a path to desired outcomes.
Scoring:
The objectives and approach for this project lack clarity and cohesion, and/or do not appear to be realistic for the context;
Activities & results defined but logic (Theory of Change) is incomplete;
Activities and results are well-defined and cohesive but some aspects require clarification;
The project has clear objectives and a cohesive approach with relevant activities for the context and timeline
Evidence A: The activities are well specified, with clear outcomes. However, the metrics and indicators are weak.
Evidence B:It is unclear how the activities led to the outcomes and how that resolves the problem. If as the proposal suggests the culturally defined and historically renowned conservation practices of the Karamojong community are revived, the link to improved IPLC governance, benefits to community or acreage - how much acreage do these sites command or IPLC driven conservation and other outcomes is not well articulated.
Scoring:
Objectives and activities do not clearly address identified threats and opportunities;
Contributions to addressing the threats and opportunities are low;
Contributions to addressing threats and enabling conditions are slightly over-ambitious;
The impact on threats and enabling conditions can be realistically accomplished and are sufficiently ambitious for the projects' context
Evidence A: The activities are likely to realistically reduce the threats included in the proposal, although the goal of improving management across 50% of the area is ambitious.
Evidence B:Unclear…
Scoring:
Activities/results not aligned with EoI range of investment;
Activities/results Partially aligned with EoI range of investment ;
Activities/results Well aligned with EoI range of investment ;
Activities/results Exceptionally well aligned with EoI range of investment
Evidence A: The activities could clearly be undertaken within the budget and timeframe.
Evidence B:Needs to be redressed…
Scoring:
None;
Small;
Moderate;
Significant
Evidence A: This is left vague in the proposal, with no indication of amounts of co-financing.
Evidence B:Possible
Scoring:
Not provided;
Very Low (below 10,000 Ha);
Moderate (between 100,000 - 500,000 Ha);
High (between 500,000 - 1,000,000 Ha);
Very high above 1,000,000 Ha
Evidence A: The total area of the project is 2.77 million hectares.
Evidence B:Karamoja is a vast grassland
Scoring:
No provided cultural or livelihood indicators for the project;
Indicators proposed but are not clearly aligned with project goals;
Indicators proposed and are moderately aligned with project goals;
Additional cultural and/or livelihood indicators clearly derive from project goals
Evidence A: There are no indicators proposed in this section
Evidence B:No indicators are provided in this respect.
Scoring:
Vision for long-term sustainability not provided;
This project does not seem to have a clear long-term impact;
This project will create medium-term benefits for biodiversity and IPLC governance, which future funding will hopefully build upon;
This project will ensure long-term benefits to biodiversity and IPLC systems of governance
Evidence A: This project has a clear view toward medium-term benefits, and a plan for financial sustainability
Evidence B:The project activities, outcomes need to reworked
Scoring:
Contributions not provided;
The project is weakly related to either national priorities;
The project appears to be tangentially related to national priorities;
The proposal reflects an understanding of the national policy priorities and clearly positions the project in relation to those priorities
Evidence A: The proposal did not reference the NBSAP, but did identify goals of the NDC that are clearly aligned.
Evidence B:Those contributions are clear.
Scoring:
Gender mainstreaming approach is absent;
Gender mainstreaming approach is weak;
Gender mainstreaming approach is moderately thought through (if there are a few activities as 'add ons');
Significant and well-thought through approach to gender mainstreaming
Evidence A: Although gender is mentioned in several places, including references to a gender-relevant seed bank, there does not appear to be a gender mainstreaming strategy.
Evidence B:Apart from describing what women used to do, the project proposal is unable to analyze processes, decisions, actions, share in results, acceptance or change in new spaces, differentiated outcomes or roles for men and women, all those aspects are not discussed in the proposal.
Scoring:
None demonstrated;
Low demonstrated potential;
Moderate demonstrated potential;
Medium-high demonstrated potential;
High demonstrated potential;
Exceptional demonstrated potential
Evidence A: If successful, this project could be scaled up through policy or replication.
Evidence B:The concept’s entry point grounded but the project activities may not deliver the outcomes.
Scoring:
IPLC appear to be beneficiaries only;
Combination/partnership of IPLC organizations and NGOs, and plans to build IPLC capacity over the project term are clear;
IPLC-led approach, NGOs in more limited, defined roles (such as fiduciary);
Fully IPLC composed and led approach
Evidence A: Fully IPLC-led.
Evidence B:There is a clear lack of an in-depth understanding of the Karamojong communities - because the organization is NOT AN IPLC Organization but works in the area/region with IPLC community based organizations as partners, it is will be essential to ensure true and empowering partnerships with IPLCs led and driven organizations in the areas for sustainability and a sense of ownership.
Scoring:
None demonstrated;
Limited demonstration of relevant on-ground leadership;
Demonstrated on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work;
Exceptional and long-standing on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work
Evidence A: The initiative appears to have demonstrated previous leadership, as evidenced by their execution of Norad projects and others.
Evidence B:Except for its previous projects stated in the proposal, which show a presence, it is limited. The partners of the applicant are however well grounded in the community and are indeed IPLC led and driven.
Scoring:
No partners defined;
No IPLC partners identified;
IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners but without clear scope (roles in project design or governance);
IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners with clear roles (in project design or governance);
Strong IPLC partnerships that play a central role in design, governance, and implementation of the project;
Strong IPLC partnerships have a central role in design, governance and implementation of the project and linkages with national or regional IPO networks
Evidence A: The roles are clearly articulated for each of the partners, but no linkages with regional or national networks.
Evidence B:The partnerships need to be clearly spelled out and what they mean
Scoring:
No skills demonstrated;
The skills and experiences outlined have little or no relation to the project activities;
There is some lack of clarity or some gaps in the capacities necessary to implement the project;
The activities clearly show how they plan to fill capacity gaps over the course of the project;
They seem to have adequate skills and capacity for the project but do not have experience with GEF projects;
The lead organization and project partners clearly communicate that they have all the skills and experience necessary to implement the project activities. Also, have past experience with GEF funded projects.
Evidence A: The initiative only lacks GEF experience. Else all other skills are there.
Evidence B:This needs to be explored further.
Scoring:
Very limited (no criteria met);
Some capacity but would require support (1/3 criteria);
Moderate capacity (2/3 criteria met);
Very strong (all criteria met) with demonstrated past performance
Evidence A: The initiative shows clear demonstration of project and financial management capacity, with multipe funding lines, a project over $200K and annual audits.
Evidence B:The applicant appears to have implemented similar projects not specific to conservation but on natural resources with funding support
Scoring:
Answered no;
Answered yes but with weak or lacking explanation to the extent;
Answered yes with clear explanation of the extent
Evidence A: The answer ‘no’ was selected.
Evidence B:Not well explained…